Is calling a game "outdated" valid criticism?

Look at one of the classics like the early King Kong films or Jason and the Argonauts.

The story may hold up, but the execution shows its age in using clay figurines whereas today's movies are largely CGI effects. It's not inherently bad, but it's an outdated approach when computers allow for faster character manipulation.

>are people out watching 1920's silent films? is dubstep still cool?

Yes

I think something that people forget is that all games that have shit gameplay today already had shit gameplay in the past and the most attentive players noticed.
Alone in the Dark was already extremely miserable to play at the time and many people complained about the controls being total shit.

>are people out watching 1920's silent films? is dubstep still cool?
How would that be valid criticism? It isn't a negative towards the media that they are old

idk man who fucking cares

The best film ever made is a silent film from the 1920s.

Attached: file.png (1000x621, 415K)

Fuck those stupid purple assholes.

That isn't a negative though. Merely a preference. Many to this day prefer old stock motion and puppets to CGI. He'll, puppets are still being used as seen with baby Yoda. Why would this be if they are dated"?

If other games do everything they do but better, yes, games can be outdated.
becoming outdated usually happens because of ports and sequels though

Not really. You have to define what is outdated or what is simply a product of the time. Starfox on the snes is by all means an "outdated" game due to its low frame rate and hyper polygonal graphics thanks to the time period it was made, but I still have a fuckin blast playing it.
Meanwhile, there's bad outdated, such as one of the Ultima games where the inventory management boils down to shifting through mountains of beef jerky. It's not fun, just really annoying.

Are tank controls and fixed camera angles outdated? I'd say yes but I really do love them and they can work really well to draw attention to certain things and envoke fear from having things deliberately out of view.

this, my favorite game of all time, final fantasy crystal chronicles, is about to become "outdated" simply because they're releasing a remaster with online play and more features. doesn't mean the original was bad

Yes. If some user calls a game outdated it will give me information and that's all criticism is good for. I don't really care how its expressed. It's my responsibility to experience things for myself anyways; so it's all valid to me no matter how useless it is.

So do you think it's bullshit when Capcom claims that they weren't influenced by alone in the dark when they made resident evil?

Attached: resident-evil-1.jpg (700x400, 55K)

Impressions are heavily influenced by what you have to compare it to. You are far less likely to notice something is a bit shit if you literally don't know any better. This can easily include stuff that you even enjoyed initially, only to realise in hindsight how flawed it was when faced with something far superior.

I would use outdated for those too. Doesn't mean it's not enjoyable, just kind of unintuitive nowadays.

I didn't know they said that, but honestly, it's not because two games have similar themes and styles that one necessarily has to be inspired by the other. But I find it hard that Capcom didn't notice Alone in the Dark before making RE...

It's weird. I don't think things can become retroactively bad, but standards inevitably go up as games develop.

This.

Yes. There are objective measures, such as cinematic techniques like camera panning or cuts that can make a movie feel "dated" because they are now awkward. There are more subjective measures that can make a movie feel dated-- special effects or tropes of the time. If movies went on to finally have higher framerates across scenes, do you not think that the trend of really low FPS, constant-cut action scenes wouldn't look or feel dated when looking back at them? You could argue this was a stylistic decision and you'd be correct, but the prevalence of the style over what could be drawn out of it means that using it clumsily as a coverup tool, just as it is used now, instead of to stylistically elevate the piece, would be dated. Music is even easier-- you can have a piece feel dated for fidelity reasons or simply for embracing a style of the time after it fades away. Disco became "dated" when it was regressive. That doesn't mean there isn't more to the discussion of that media's worth as a whole-- but it can be a valid criticism or note.

just kick 'em bro

lol if only

You played Alone in the Dark in a hotel? I think you’re mistaken, user.

Only if it's a contemporary game that uses old game design principles or production without justification. "Outadated" is used in vidya criticism a good deal more then other mediums tho, usually inappropriately.

No. To analyze a game you have to analyze its context, including the era it came out.

no. not on its own anyways
what, no, absolutely not.
>thinking your opinion matters while being physically disabled

you're confusing something being a contemporary trend with something being outdated.

learn your words

These games weren't actively trying to look like shit. I think you're extremely mistaken.

Carnby running around in the Santa suit was the funniest shit ever when I was a kid.

That and the silly part with the little girl made me forget all about the controls and shit. 10/10 kino

Attached: 354.jpg (258x245, 12K)

I think there is still things that could be explored with those, especially fixed camera angles. Cameras works is underused and childish in 90% of games in general. Last time I was impressed and surprised by it is nier automata and XIII and no one is dissecting and copying Silent Hill cameras and level design integration.
Honestly, considering how much devs like movies and copying them, they should go and finish some movie making courses, the childish imitation they call "cinematic experience" is embarrassing.

No, never.

That's obvious. But games generally need more than just making an impression, because they force people to sit and experiment.
Hardly a game that really made people dedicate themselves in the past is completely unplayable garbage. Even though these games had horrible gameplay and graphics, they still had some value in another area.

Yes. Sometimes a game just sucks because it’s old. Take an 70s Ferrari. At the time it was gorgeous (and can still be), record breaking fast, and expensive. But by today’s standards it’s an unliveable piece of shit. Handles like ass, uncomfortable, unreliable and actually quite slow.

Video games are no different. For the time it may be ground breaking but by today’s standards it’s just not good.

Yes.

And then they got all the crazy shit from 3.

No because that would be implying games in the same genre being made today are better, which they are not.

To the chagrin of zoomers everywhere:
No.

I think that someone saying that they don't like the controls or the graphics is fine, but calling it outdated is too general a term for what they should be saying. Also, I'm sad that the remake for Alone in the Dark 1 never got finished. The video I saw of it made it look really cool.

Mikami admitted he was heavily influenced by the game like 5 years ago, since now he can't be sued into oblivion for it.

Yes, but the people who drove the 1970s Ferrari were fully aware of their shortcomings, even though it was incredible for them, they still knew that they couldn't accelerate more than a certain speed if they wanted to stay on track.
For games it's the same. People were impressed by the technology that looks like garbage to us, but when it came to the game itself, people knew what was fun and what wasn't. And if an old game has absolutely no fun factor for us today (after you get used to the frame rate and the camera), then it didn't have it in the past and probably nobody took it seriously.

No, because anyone can train themselves to think and feel like those in the past did, and there is always something to learn about the present from the past. It's an excuse for the lazy casual who doesn't want to investigate the past.

Damn, never managed to play 3. Didn't even know it existed until late 2000s

Lmao, no.
Games control way fucking better now than they ever did. No need to torture yourself by going back.

Everything is valid criticism.

What was the peak in the past is still part of the peak now if you understand the past. Not to say that Alone in the Dark was a peak for video games by any means, but a game like Jet Set Radio definitely still is.

I played the game for the first time in 2010s, and the controls were fucking GREAT. The fuck are you on??

>hmmm I need to take cover
>character glues his ass to complete opposite wall
>no, I need to you to get out of that
>jumps over the cover
>no you imbecile get back
>sluggishly turns 180 cause mah physics animations
>starts climbing ladder that is 3 meters away
I can't even count how many times I was fucked over by the controls in games since cover shooting became a thing.

Attached: 1575836093267.gif (498x384, 3.98M)

because they looked objectively awful
you can't compare the shitty king kong to baby yeed

So, something has been bothering me. Why is this monster holding a Gold flag while jumping on some lady wipes lipstick across his neck while staring at the ceiling.

making obvious bait

the christmas jack in the box game that came with this was scarier

You have to explain how it's outdated for it to be valid.

Alone in Dark: Ghost Cowboys need Uranium and you get turned into a cougar by an injun edition

Yea easily, but the better term is becoming obsolete. That's because being older and becoming technologically and mechanically surpassed by your successors doesn't inherently render the game as something that's not worthwhile to play (e.g. Metal Gear Solid), but with that said, there's a ton of games that aren't because aside from what they introduced to the medium, they were nothing special. For the latter, when a newer game picks those pieces up and builds on them, then they're suddenly not worthwhile to play anymore either than as a milestone piece of history, and that's when you know it's obsolete.

You can also make smaller complaints about how the game's age makes it a bit of a pain nowadays. Prime targets include Thief's clunky handling of resolutions and menus, the horrendous framerate of Perfect Dark, the lack of a cursors on menus for Doom and Quake, the abysmal speed and acceleration in Jet Set Radio compared to Future, draw distances of 3ft on old consoles, password systems, and so on.

Outdated apparently just means "Not a cinematic experience."

Attached: 1405297392024.jpg (661x1023, 96K)

lmao, from ganster and pirate zombies to uranium seeking cowboys... makes sense

Attached: 1385678610289.jpg (433x380, 26K)

>For the latter, when a newer game picks those pieces up and builds on them, then they're suddenly not worthwhile to play anymore either than as a milestone piece of history, and that's when you know it's obsolete.
That doesn't make much sense, if you think about it. The factor that made the original experience fun is still there, regardless of whether another game did better.
An example of this is the game Celeste. It is based on a game made on Pico-8, which is an extremely limited fantasy console. The Celeste for PC is infinitely better than the Celeste on the Pico-8, but the original version is fun in itself and is perfectly playable, with an interesting challenge.
People are able to adapt to different situations and even if you are totally used to modern standards, you don't need more than a few minutes to understand the limitations of an old game and focus on the factors that make it good.

You got fucking flippers for hands guy.

Not everything is timeless, user.

You've missed my point entirely then. I've already addressed the idea of games being infinitely surpassed mechanically and technologically by their successors but still being worthwhile to play because they're fun, well-made games on their own merits, and somehow you've decided to repeat that back to me.

Oh yeah, sorry. I'm drunk and my English is bad.

If a game comes out and does the same thing an older game does but better, then the older game is dated.
You could always go back an experience it, but it will essentially be eclipsed by the newer product.
There are loads of games like this, such as the bottomless pit of SHMUPs that exist.
No one will ever traverse that ocean, you'll only ever need to play the few that hit the peak of the genre.

Attached: 1351708770504.jpg (367x368, 47K)